Delete a file by path; action fails if the file does not exist or path is a directory. A prior checkpoint can restore the deleted file.
Delete a file, not a directory; fails if it does not exist. Reverting to an earlier checkpoint recreates it. To edit content use replace_text or apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | File path to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint, so the description adds meaningful behavior beyond it: failure on nonexistent files and a notable reversibility caveat ('Reverting to an earlier checkpoint recreates it'). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences with no filler: first states action and scope, second covers failure and reversibility, third routes to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, this is complete: it covers purpose, failure mode, reversibility, and alternatives. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the path param is self-explanatory, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the path must be a file (not a directory), which directly informs the parameter's acceptable value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the specific action 'Delete a file', the resource type, and explicitly excludes directories. The failure condition ('fails if it does not exist') and the pointer to edit alternatives ('use replace_text or apply') distinguish it clearly from sibling tools like create_file, replace_text, and apply.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit exclusion ('not a directory'), a precondition ('fails if it does not exist'), and names concrete alternatives for the adjacent use case of editing ('replace_text or apply'). An agent can decide unambiguously when to use this tool versus siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.